1. Le réformateur Martin Bucer était théonomiste

« Martin Bucer [was] the first-generation Reformer from the city of Strasbourg. Bucer was the leader of the Reform in that city and, indeed, throughout southern Germany. Next to Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, and Calvin, he was the most prominent of all the early Protestant leaders. […]

At the request of Archbishop Cranmer, Bucer became a professor of divinity at Cambridge in 1549. Very popular among the English Reformers, Bucer’s advice and counsel were repeatedly “sought out […].” Though he suffered frequently from ill health, his status and influence cannot be minimized. De Regno Christi, written in 1550 and addressed to the young Edward VI, “represents the first Protestant treatise on social ethics, and is the product of a mature man standing on the verge of old age. It reflects the experience of a lifetime in manifold labors for an actual reformation of the church as well as society.”

Clearly Bucer “regarded the Old Testament and the New Testament as a unity.” Thus, the case laws of the Mosaic law played an important role in his concept of the Christian commonwealth. His position regarding the general equity of the Mosaic judicials is certainly akin to, if not exactly, that put forward by Bahnsen in Theonomy [in Christian Ethics]. An honest reading of Bucer will readily reveal that theonomy is not something new ! […]

Because his [Bucer’s] commonwealth was based upon the eternal, immutable word of God, such a charge would in fact be one against God Himself ! Is God’s word less than practical or less than relevant ? Surely God must have some notion as to how a civil government might be duly framed ! »

« Bucer plainly held that the penal sanctions of the Older Testament were the best ever devised, being authored by God Himself, and thus should be enacted in all Christian states. […] Bucer readily turned to the social legislation recorded in the books of Moses, and held that modern Christian states should conform to them. […]

While Christians are not bound to the Mosaic legislation in terms of circumstances peculiar to the Older Testament era, yet,

whoever does not reckon that such commandments are to be conscientiously observed is certainly not attributing to God either supreme wisdom or a righteous care for our salvation.

Bucer’s position thus is this: in a Christian state, the Mosaic legislation has a binding force. […] The final question, then, is this: does the modern theonomic-theocratic position advocated by Rushdoony, Bahnsen, et. al., stand in line with Bucer or with the Anabaptists ? […] The modern theonomic position is a descendent of Bucer, and is not condemned by Calvin. »

Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575)

2. Le réformateur Heinrich Bullinger était théonomiste

« The Second Helvetic Confession of 1566 was almost entirely the work of Heinrich Bullinger of Zurich, one of the great second-generation Reformers, who lived from 1504 to 1575. In an earlier work, Antiquissima Fides et vera Religio, translated by Miles Coverdale (1488-1568) as The Old Faith, Bullinger had written regarding the judicial law :

Whereas, besides the ceremonies, there is much written also in the law concerning civil polity, ordinance, judgment, to live peaceable and well in city and land ; of buying and selling, of war and peace, of inheritance and properties, of laws matrimonial, of the punishment of the wicked, of the judgment and council, of lending and borrowing, etc. ; it is no news at all, and serveth altogether for the declaration of the six commandments of the second table.

Such laws and rules to live in peace, in a civil order and virtue, have also the holy fathers had from the beginning of the world written in their hearts by God himself. Now hath God also caused all to be comprehended in writing by Moses, to the intent that the world might have all more clearly and perfectly, and that no man might excuse himself of ignorance.

Bullinger’s Second Helvetic Confession does not, any more than the Belgic Confession, state that the judicial law of Moses has expired. Chapter 27 clearly states that the ceremonial was abolished. In chapter 12, “Of the Law of God,” we read :

For plainness’ sake we divide it into the moral law, which is contained in the commandments, or the two tables expounded in the books of Moses ; into the ceremonial, which does appoint ceremonies and the worship of God ; and into the judicial, which is occupied about political and domestic affairs. We believe that the whole will of God, and all necessary precepts, for every part of this life, are fully delivered in this law. For otherwise the Lord would not have forbidden that “anything should be either added or taken away from this law” (Deut. 4:2, 12:32) ; neither would he have commanded us to go straight forward in this, and “not to decline out of the way, either to the right hand or to the left” (Josh. 1:7).

The second paragraph cited above certainly reads as if Bullinger intended us to keep all of the Mosaic [civil] law. […] In the Decades, however, Bullinger firmly insists upon the abrogation of the Mosaic judicials. No nation is bound to receive them as its laws. Nonetheless, “the substance of God’s judicial laws is not taken away or abolished, but…. the ordering and limitation of them is placed in the arbitrement of good Christian princes….” Bullinger also argues that the good laws of the ancient world (Calvin’s “common law of nations” [c-à-d le Code civil de l’Empereur chrétien Justinien le Grand]) trace back to Moses, so that one reason Moses’s specifics are no longer binding is that the laws of the nations so closely approximate them. Thus, in a concrete sense, Bullinger’s rejection of the letter of the Mosaic judicials is related to the fact that he saw their continuation in spirit in his own culture. »

3. Le réformateur Hugh Latimer était théonomiste

« Hugh Latimer (1485-1555) was also a bishop and martyr. The following quotation demonstrates a high regard for the civil use of the law of Moses.

There is no king, emperor, magistrate, and ruler, of what state soever they be, but are bound to obey this God, and to give credence unto his holy word, in directing their steps ordinately according to the same word. Yea, truly, they are not only bound to obey God’s book, but also the minister of the same, “for the word’s sake,” so far as he speaketh “sitting in Moses’ chair” ; that is, if his [the preacher’s—n.d.l.r.] doctrine be taken out of Moses’ law. For in this world God hath two swords, the one is a temporal sword, the other a spiritual. The temporal sword resteth in the hands of kings, magistrates, and rulers, under him; whereunto all subjects, as well the clergy as the laity, be subject, and punishable for any offence contrary to the same book.

In short, the preacher explains the law of Moses to the civil magistrate, who then enforces the relevant sections of it with the sword. Latimer also declared, “I would wish that Moses’s law were restored for punishment of lechery.” »

4. Le réformateur Thomas Becon était théonomiste

« Thomas Becon (1512-1567) studied under Latimer. He was a chaplain to Archbishop Cranmer, and his Catechism was written during the reign of Edward the Sixth, during the period of Bucer’s influence in England. Becon cites the penal laws of Moses as examples to civil magistrates of every age. He emphasizes that if wrongs against man are to be punished—the second table of the law—how much more should wrongs against God be punished. He adds: “But we have…. an expressed commandment to kill and put out of the way all idolaters and false prophets….”

This evidence from the mid-sixteenth century, while not always evidence of a rigorously consistent approach to the matter, surely does serve to indicate a deep respect for the civil implications of the law of Moses. »